tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News May 22, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
the crew hoisting the victims up of a state park. best news, no injuries reported. that team and all the men and women of the u.s. coast guard, you are our midnight heroes. must watch, most trusted, most grateful you spent the evening with us. good night from washington. i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." things are moving fast, but think back, if you still can, to ten years, ten years ago. what were democrats saying about abortion at that time? a decade ago? well, they said they believed in roe v. wade, they said abortion is never preferable, but t it ought to be legal for the first trimester of pregnancy. they were not, they often told us, pro-abortion, they were pro-choice. a lot of voters, by the way, agreed with them. you might not like it, buto- according to the polls, that was a mainstream position. that is not where democratic leaders are today. the party's new position is the more abortion, the better. abortion must be available for any reason at all, up until theo
moment of birth. as an op-ed in "the new york times" this morning put it, "pregnancy kills, abortions save lives." in other words, it's better to abort a pregnancy than to bring it to term. that is their view. how many voters agree with that? almost none. most people find it disgusting. just as most people, according to polls, don't think taxpayers ought to be forced to pay for abortions. democrats running for president don't care what the polls say, they're for it. >> will you commit to abolishing the hyde amendment, which hurtsi poor women and women of color? >> yes. and by the way, aclu, i have a near perfect voting record my entire career.an >> i heard you did, but i'mhe glad you said you would commit to abolishing the hyde amendment. >> it can't stay. >> i will work to overturn the hyde amendment, which makes it impossible for low a income womn
to get access to reproductive care, including abortion services. >> we have work to do until we get rid of the hyde amendment once and for all! [cheers and applause] >> tucker: the hyde amendment. for more than 40 years, the hyde amendment has protected people of faith from being forced to pay for what they think is killing. certainly, pete buttigieg would understand that, as a man of god. buttigieg has spent the last few months accentuating his personal holiness. just the other day, he told us that the lord strongly prefers him to mike pence. so what says st. pete of south bend on the question of abortion? p he is strongly for it. his position is any restriction at all, for any reason at all, is unacceptable. >> most americans believe it if you'd be up the woman to be make that choice. by pursuing a radical agenda on these social issues, republicans are doing same thing when they have resisted a popular agenda hi things like living wages and
health care, just one more example of extremism in the modern republican party. >> tucker: so you want fewer abortions? according to holy man pete buttigieg, that makes you crazy, and possibly dangerous, certainly an extremist. notice that buttigieg has no problem at all with senator mazie hirono of hawaii. just yesterday, she bragged about brainwashing middle schoolers to support abortion. watch. >> public school in hawaii, and i told them i was coming to a rally in front of the supreme court, and they said why? i said because we have to fight for abortion rights, and they knew all about it. i asked the girls of that group of eighth graders, how many of you girls think that government should be telling us women when and if we want to have babies? not a single one of them raised their a a hands. [applause] o
and the boys who were there, i said, you know, a girl wouldn't get pregnant without you guys. they got it. how many of you boys think that government should be telling girls and women when and if we are going to have babies? and not a single one of them raised their hands. [cheers and applause] >> tucker: imagine saying something like that to someone else's kids. senator cory booker could easily imagine it. like mazie hirono, booker has no children of his own, but he is fervently committed to abortion, so committed to it thatit if elected, cory bookr has promised to create something called the white house office of reproductive freedom. the only point of the office would be to ensure that we have enough abortions in this country. cory booker believes that abortions are a vital strategic resource, like oil or uranium. it would be interesting to know why cory booker believes that. like most of the democratic candidates, he refuses to come on the show, so we can't ask him directly. but we wouldo love to know what
he makes, for example, of the abortion rate in black america. african-american women are five times as likely to get abortions as white women in the united states. what does cory booker think of that? is it something to celebrate? should we be fighting to get the abortion rate even higher? what about sex-selective abortions? they are common, are they morally okay? is it right to abort a baby if you know it was going to be gay, or short, or prematurely bald? thanks to genetic testing, those may soon be real questions. is there any abortion, under any circumstance, that is ever bad, or a little bad, or are they all morally neutral, no matter what the cause or stage of pregnancy? those are the most basic questions about abortion. nobody on the other channel ever asks them. that is a shame. the answers would be fascinating. mollie hemingway is a senior editor at "the federalist," and she joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. before you came on, i looked at
the polling on abortion, and it is pretty much where it has been most of my life, which is, probably a slight majority in favor of the rough framework of roe v. wade. nobody is for abortion in the eighth month. e.elective abortion. nobody is for sex-selective abortion. nobody is for a lot of the stuff, most people aren't for public funding, so why are they candidate so far off where the public is? >> well, it's a difficult situation for democrats were running for office because they are beholden to an abortion lobby. it requires them to have increasingly extreme positions. so you are seeing this, as you pointed out, ten years ago you might hear something like "abortion should be safe, legal, andho rare." now the approved positions that democrats have to take it they want to have a good chance ofg winning a primary is that abortion can take place anytime, anywhere, and that taxpayersriab should fund it. t it's a radical shift from what we have seen, and it's far outside the mainstream of american thought. it is not far outside the
mainstream of the media's thinking. the media increasingly control our discourse, and of course they have been overwhelmingly supportive of abortion, going back decades. david shaw at the "los angeles times" did a study of this in 1990 showing that something like 80% to 90% of people in the media supported abortion, and that is far outside of what the average american thinks on these issues. but our newsrooms do not seem to care about matching american opinion, or even reflecting it honestly. you see the same euphemisms that democrats use as they are running for office are the euphemisms used by the media. we say reproductive rights or whether women can decide about whether to have children. that is because we don't want to talk about what we are actually discussing here, which is whether or not it should be legal to end ach human life aftr it has begun, two months later, four months later, nine months h later. now you are even seeing certain wings in the democratic party saying that even if a child survives abortion, she should be allowed to be left to die and notul receive any protection. this is a radical shift in
opinion. >> tucker: yeah, i mean, nobody is for that. even people who describe themselves as pro-choice would acknowledge there is somethingsc sad about abortion. it is killing, obviously,e everyone knows that. thatou is not really up for debate. can democrats running for office admit that? that there is something sad,or uncomfortable, depressing, maybe even wrong about abortion? >> again, it is a difficult situation for them to be in because they arecu not allowed o have that position, given how much support comes to them from planned parenthood, naral, other fairly radical abortion rights groups. what's sad about that as there are a lot of democrats who are pro-life, a lot of people -- joe biden himself used to be pro-life. to not have a voice in that party is not good for the party, but also not good for the general human rights because of protecting life and protecting women and making sure women with children are not treated as if they should be ending the lives of their children or not getting the support they need. be a important there caucus in both parties for this
important, this most important civil rights issue of our time. >> tucker: well, of course. if you devalue childbearing, you devalue women, by definition. all very amazing how quickly this is going on. mollie hemingway, thank you very much for that perspective. appreciate it. alison howard centofante is director of strategic communications at live-action, she was a counter demonstrator yesterday at a prohibition rally in washington, carrying a sign that refer to the fact the reverend jesse jackson was conceived through rape. she soon got attacked for that. >> you're wrong. you are the wrong gender to be wrong. all right, b pro-life barbie, wk the [bleep] away. we are done. >> what about reverend jesse jackson? >> he's alive. >> [bleep]. it's my [bleep] choice. >> she should have had the choice to kill him? >> [bleep] you. [bleep] you.
[bleep] you. >> tucker: alison howard centofante joins us tonight. that was quite a scene we just played. you've been doing this for a while. has the reaction changed to you? >> absolutely. there's an increased aggression from pro-abortion people. that was her than 5 minutes of being atat this rally. my sign did talk about reverend jesse jackson being conceived in rape. i did want to present that. look, he was conceived in rape. would we tell him he shouldn't be here right now? no. we value our lives. the other side of the sign says "love them both." that was a really winsome message. there are some pro-abortionn women who came over had nice things to say about that. and my shirt said "women's rights begin in the womb," because they do. i've had a couple of interesting conversations and interactions thatat you just shared. >> tucker: it's interesting, why the emotion? why this, among all of the issues -- and a lot of people say it is a life or death issue, and of course it is, but there are others.
health care among them, where people don't get this upset. why does the pro-choice side feel this outrage? what is it about? >> right, well, this is unlike any other procedure. planned parenthood and naral and others say abortion is just like removing a tooth, just like removing a tumor. people don't yell at each other over appendicitis removal, right? >> tucker: good point. >> it's different. there is a life on the line emotional here, that is why it is emotional on both sides. but the pro-life movement to saying, look, there is a life there that is -- we welcome you. these poor women, we want her ti come get healing, and not be so angry. instead, she has to double down. thebl sad part is, she was probably lied to about her options, lied to about so-called need for this. she thinks abortion is empowering for women. it's not. that is what live-action is educating on, and we are now training people their ambassadors program to get involved, to share a message. that is how you change hearts and minds, you step into the fray. that is what i did yesterday,
just showing up with a sign to start a conversation. but we need to have it. we can't just yell at each other, and the pro-life movement is going to remain peaceful and loving and nonviolent, until we see this through to the end. >> tucker: do you think the other side will remain peaceful? it doesn't look that way. >> no, i mean, you saw representative simms a couple weeks ago attack pro-life side walk counselors, went up to philadelphia to say knock it off, resign, stop bullying us. this increased hostility is concerning, but look, violence begets violence. abortion is a violent act. it dismembers a child in the womb, it hurts a woman physically, emotionally, and so we need to stop the violence. mollie did a great job talking about this being a human rights issue. the question i had yesterday for this woman in the presidential candidate, bernie sanders, amy klobuchar,de will you draw a lie anywhere? when do you acknowledge human life? so far, they haven't answered
that. i hope they will soon. but most americans do not support abortion through all nine months like they do. they understand, maybe heartbeat, maybe pain capable at 20 weeks, but not like this. we're going to continue educating so that momentum continues. >> tucker: they don't want tot have a conversation that include specifics, because they are horrifying when you get specific. alison, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: the creepy porn lawyer was obviously exploiting stormy daniels from day one. now he is charged with that, criminally. we will bring you the latest. ♪ criminally. we will bring you the latest. ♪ (photographers) candace! charlie!
♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, for a lot of calendar year 2018, the creepy porn lawyer was a bona fide star on cable news. cnn had him on so often, he brought a covered disk to the company picnic. over at msnbc, familiarity bred enchantment. they were starting to worship the guy. >> he is a beast. >> he keeps popping donald trump and all of his folks in the mouth. he may be the favorite of the republic. >> i owe him an apology. i was saying, enough, michael, i've seen youpp everywhere. what do you have left to say? i was wrong, brother. >> tucker: sincere question: how dumb would you have to be to find the creepy porn lawyer impressive? he was such a transparent fraude such a total con, in and only for himself. there no question about that ever. we told him so directly the night he came to visit us on the show. watch. >> tucker: you profited from stormy daniels, done tens of
millions of dollars of free media on the basis of your relationship with her, and she is working in strip clubs.is you are exploiting her, and you know that. why aren't you paying her some of what you are making? >> sir, this is absurd. >> tucker: but answer my question, why are you richak and your client is working in seedy strip clubs? >> do you have any idea how much moneyn i've earned? >> tucker: you are on every cable show. i know you haven't paid your taxes. like so many lawyers, you are taking advantage of her, and you pose as a feminist hero because you are shameless, and the other channels let you get away with it. but you're an exploiter of the woman, and you should be ashamed of it. >> tucker: we hate to brag, almost never do, but tonight we are going to make a rare exception. weon were right about him. today, the creepy porn lawyer was indicted on a new set of criminalct charges. they allege that he defrauded, yes, stormy daniels. turns out he was not a feminist hero. according to the indictment,
pcl forged her w signature and used her book advance on hotels, restaurants, and things like that. all the while, stormy daniels worked in strip clubs to pay her bills. creepy porn lawyer lived luxuriously on her misfortune. is anybody outside of cable news surprised by this? melissa francis, cohost of "outnumbered," a friend of ours, she joins uss? tonight. melissa, i know you are not surprised by this. the whole prime time line up on a bunch of other channels must have their jaws open, they wanted him to be president. >> yeah, they were very excited about him. you ran through the details very well, especially looking back at that interview on what you said and him saying, oh, no, it wasn't exploiting her -- it turns out, right, that he was forging her name to divert funds that were coming to her for her book deal and putting them in his account. and he says, in his defense, he was tweeting today, basically, i was owed that because i was the lawyer. then why did you have to forge her name? and why, then, did you tell her, according to the criminal indictment from the southern district, why did you tell her that the publisher was used to pay?
he's lying to her, he's lying to everyone to divert the money. his defense is, i was owed it. that's just one small thing. when you look at the whole thing, with nike, he extorted s nike, waited until the earnings period. this is all alleged, and according to what the southern they claim he waited until nike's earnings period, when they would be most vulnerable, and he said you have done wrong, and i am going to have a press conference if you don't hire me right now toss aut your company for $20 million, and i will be your internal counsel to audit your company. or the caveat was you can just give me $222 million, and i will be quiet and go away. this is all in the paperwork that came out today that we read, and he is tweeting back in his defense, i will be exonerated, i was owed this money in all of these different cases. all told, he could go to jail for 404 years, and in my book,
it's really not enough for everything that he did. he also had bank fraud, wire fraud, filed for bankruptcy, lied in that proceeding -- all alleged, again, alleged. but this is a lot of piling on in california, in new york, all over the place. it kind of hits on two themes that our viewers love here. number one is hypocrisy. and that is what you really put out there when you have the interview with him, where hehe s standing there, holier-than-thou, filled with sanctimony, saying this person broke the law. this person is immoral. i'm standing up for what is right, and the law, this answer that. and here, according to these officials, and these law enforcement officers, he is one of the biggest criminals and predators out there, according to what they are saying. the other thing that i think is really interesting, that your viewers love, is the irony. because you've got to think that he was doing this for a long time, and there are many clients he's accused of defrauding. he spent the money on ferraris, a private plane, they say.
he t was living the lifestyle, d defrauding people who are being paid for legitimate things. but he didn't get caughthe until he went all over television. until he was drunk on his own sayings. he had people like stephanie ruhle over at msnbc celebrating him, right? until he had -- >> tucker: but where it is judgment? it was so obvious. i actually feel sorry for him at this stage. there is clearly something wrong with him. i don't want to speculate, but there's clearly something wrong -- there has always been something wrong with the guy. any person who spent 2 minutes with him we know that, and yet somehow they didn't know that?om these purveyors of facts. >> you know why, because they were doing the work that they wanted done. he was out there doing the work. >> tucker: exactly. >> he goes after brett kavanaugh, he had stormy daniels to go after the president, he was doing the bidding of what the other networks wanted, so they looked past it. >>f tucker: doing the work of
the democratic party. >> i do think it's interesting, had he not gotten drunk on his own fame, he might have gotten away with it. >> tucker: it is almost like a scooby-doo episode, "if it weren't for your kids and your dog!" melissa francis, great to see you. >> great to see you, too. >> tucker: democrats are in the middle of a not very well covered, but absolutely real, civil war. it's not about policy or fixing the country's problems, it is about impeachment. will they or won't they? they can't decide. that's next. ♪ ide. that's next. ♪ (male announcer) get huge savings on clothing for the outdoors
>> tucker: well, for years the democrats promised their voters that a thorough investigation would uncover a plot by donald trump to sell this country to vladimir putin and russia! well, it didn't happen, they didn't find that. instead of moving out or maybe working with trump to help the countryy improve, they have
adopted a new line. the president committed a cover-up! >> we believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the united states. we believe the president of the united states is engaged in a cover-up. >> she keeps coming back to the things like accountability and that there is a cover-up. those are the two essentialnt issues, let's keep following where the evidence leads us. >> it is starting to look moreti like a cover-up. he doesn't let anybody come and testify before congress. innocent people don't act like the president. >> tucker: what exactly did the president cover-up? nobody knows. what should we do about it? democrats can't agree on that, either, critically. nancy pelosi is struggling to keep control of democrats in the house, but more radical elements of her party are saying impeachment is the only option. who will win? luis miranda is a former dnc communication director, he joins us tonight. he thanks a lot for coming on. should the president be impeached? >> i think the house should definitely move forward on impeachment proceedings because
the mueller report showed very clearly that he did exactly the kind of obstruction of justice that youths are laid out in the articles of impeachment for richard nixon. now, as we see what he is doing to keep congress from carrying out his investigation, forcing even private citizens who no longer work for the government to not be able to come in and testify, it just shows exactly what it said on article three of the articles of impeachment against richard nixon. >> tucker: okay, okay, so why isn't the speaker of the house, the much venerated nancy pelosi, why isn't -- of it so obvious, why isn't she behind n this? >> i think she is working with her caucus to bring them together and work, not just on things like what you need to do on impeachment, which i think some of the investigations are going to help with that, especially, as i just said, the investigations that are now calling on subpoenas of formerve administration officials, and donald trump stepping in and not letting them. that is an example of an impeachable offense. she is trying to bring everyone on the same page, moving forward in a constructive way.
but tucker, i think -- >> tucker: she's not for impeachment, she said that. you think they made a mistake. nancy pelosi, whatever you think of her, she is a very sophisticated person, who has been in washington for an awfully long time. >> an incredible operator, terrific job with her caucus. l however, i think the democrats made a mistake -- >> tucker: hold on, she doesn't want to impeachment. okay, but she slowly walked it because she knows it will hurt the democratic party. do you disagree with that? >> i do disagree. they're comparing this to what happened in the '90s with bill clinton. at that time, you had that republicans investigating socks the cat over the letters he was getting from people around the country, tucker. that is why the american people -- >un tucker: actually, no, that's not -- i was there, i cover that whole thing -- >> the deutsche bank situation, they will just yesterday, in fact, congress does have oversight, does have the right to investigate. i think all of these things will continue to show the pattern ofa
obstruction of justice, of behavior that is just not consistent with the oath the presidentth took, is important. because at the end of the day, tucker, the republican party is a party of the rule of law, and if we skirt it, if we flaunt it, if we treat it like it doesn't matter, we might as well be a third world country at this point, tucker. >> tucker: then we will have sanctuary cities, where people ignore federal immigration law. that would be crazy. >> if you believe in the rule of law, we should definitely protect our democracy, absolutely. >> tucker: i've heard that for three years from people who have zero interest in democracy at all.l. who spent the whole time,ze the last two years, trying to undo an election result because they hate democracy so much. a lot of things you say aboutea trump, but don't cast opposition to trump as a defense of democracy. it's not, actually. trump is were to get in democracy and you guys hate that. >> in 2018, democrats won the house of representatives, in part because this country recognizes that sometimes
dividedd government is better. you have a government that keeps ovchecks and balances. >> tucker: i think people do want that -- >> if you're going to have control of the house of representatives and not conduct and carry out your constitutional duty of oversight and holding president trump accountable, when you see example after example of him obstructing -- tucker: [laughs] we just had two and a half years of russian investigation. >> you undermine the democracy. and the mueller report shows -- >> tucker: all right, all right. i'm not going to get mad about it. i do think you're going to doom whoever the candidate is to a loss if you impeach, but you obviously disagree. >> i remember 2010, when so many democrats shied away from defending the affordable care act because republicans criticized them on it. republicans are going to criticize over impeachment whether you do it or not, you might as well live up to what the forefathers put in the constitution for you to do in congress, have oversightth over the executive branch. >> tucker: luis, good luck withth that. >> thanks, tucker. good to see you, too. >> tucker: thanks to
nancy pelosi, the phrase "cover-up" dominated cable news today. watch. >> nancy pelosi describes president trump as being engaged in a cover-up. >> one of the things that she said is the trump administration is engaged in a cover-up. >> she said president trump is engaged in a cover-up. >> comments pelosi has made this morning that the president has engaged in a cover-up. >> she accused the president of engaging in a cover-up. >> the president complaining to the speaker of the house that she accused him of a cover-up. >> that phrase from nancy pelosi really set him off. >> tucker: over at msnbc, one anchor accused the president of a cover-up! for refusing to publicize his private life. >> when you talk about, i don't do coverups, also the facl that he has been refusing to let his current and former aides testify. refusing to turn over documents that have been demanded,
including the tax returns. also refusing to grant an interview to robert mueller.d, >> tucker: joe concha watches an awful lot of television, he writes about media for "the hill," and he joins us tonight. joe, is it my imagination, or did once again the speaker of the house deliver the talking point that everyone on cable news eagerly took up and repeated? >> i think you're seeing a pattern here, tucker. back in january, the term "manufactured crisis" was used to talk about what was going on at the u.s. southern border, and then you heard over and over, dozens upon dozens of times, not just from one network, but different networks, different anchors or pundits or guests using that same exact term to the word. "manufactured crisis." sure enough, even "the new york times" admits, it's no longer a manufactured crisis at the border, that's a real thing. a story for another time. and then we have the other crisis, which was the constitutional crisis, and thati was two weeks ago when
bill barr, after he testified in front of the senate, decided not to do so with the house when they changed the rules around, as far as staffers being able to question him, which had never happened in congress before, and he said this is going to be a circus, no thanks, i'm not going to show up. that became a constitutional crisis. pelosi said that, as well. sure enough, at the media research center -- i get they're conservative, but the numbers are usually accurate. between may 8th and mayy 12th, abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, and msnbc, that exact term, "constitutional crisis," was uttered 386 times. >> tucker: [laughs] >> i'm not very good at math, but i'm sure that's more than 70 times, if you average it out, per network. so, yeah, he goes out one mouth, it comes out another mouth, and now here we are with "cover-up," and h that will be the next "constitutional crisis" in terms of terms we see over and over again,n, as if it's an echo chamber. >> tucker: we are entering
campaign season. there is a presidential campaign in progress already. at some point, these are campaign finance violations. these are television networks donating to presidential campaigns, to a party, and not declaring it. >> that would be very interesting to see that case be made, perhaps. it just seems to be that people are taking their cues from one party in this business, and not the other, particularly from pelosi. and look, i wanted to hear some reporters yell at her the way trump is yelled at. what cover-up are you about?cally talking who is involved in this cover-up? is bob mueller involved in thiss cover-up? because he has been reluctant to testify to this point. so is he also part of the cover-up that now includes, i believe, bill barr, don mcgahn, cato kaelin, the white house chef, who else is involved in this deep conspiracy of people who otherwise probably don't like the president that much, but are willing to put their careers on the line to cover w upt for him? it's quite comical, on some level, actually. >> tucker: it is kind of amazing. i hope we get to the bottom of
it. i know there are russians there somewhere. joe, thank you. >> good to see you. >> tucker: kamala harris says if she is elected president, her administration will fine companies unless they pay men and women exactly the same wage. and yet her own campaign pays men more than women. irony alert. details ahead. ♪ it details ahead. ♪
amount. the differences in pay are on differences in seniority, or ability, or they will be fined a lot. there is just one problem with harris' idea -- even she can't follow it. according to "the washington free beacon," both harris's senate office and presidential campaign pay men more than women, and they have for quite some time. huh. marjorie clifton is a feminist and ceo of clifton consulting and she joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. this is one of the irresistible irony stories. it seems to me that if you are proposing fining other people for committing what you say is a crime, you shouldn't be committing it yourself. yet she is. >> one of the problems, in the article, the reporter states that he doesn't know the jobs thatat men versus women are holding. the challenge we've got is we actually can't compare apples to apples. the policies she is pushing have to do with equal pay for equal work. not that we just pay women more
because they are women.he we pay them in the exact same job as a man, the same amount as a male counterpart. that is the premise. >> tucker: right, except the problem is she has been lying about with the payay gap is, because when you adjust for education, time spent on the job, and job description, that gap disappears, as you know. so she is arguing on the campaign trail, apples to oranges, and then when busted herself, she is hiding behind that same excuse? it doesn't really -- >> no, the reporter is the one acknowledging he didn't have data about what men versus women were doing, the hours they were working. the data he has is based on the number of men to women, a 95% -- women pay $0.95 to the dollar of the men. tucker, working on campaigns, you know this, there are more men at senior levels. i was giving you credit for being young, but no, right now, we still have gaps with women in senior roles.
campaign managers, i know a lot of the democratic candidates have been looking for women to run their campaigns, and there just aren't as many qualified. the point she is making is -- >> tucker: wait a second, wait a second. no, kamala harris, this is her office, not just her campaign, but her officeer and her campai, going back at least a year, twor six month periods. she can't find, in a country of 335 million people, she can't find women qualified enough to occupy senior positions in her office and her campaign? >> that's not what i said. we don't know because the reporter himself did not know what the profile of the workers in her office -- >> tucker: okay, but you are willing y -- what would be an explanation that doesn't make kamala harris look like a craven hypocrite? >> the upper ranks in her office, she may have two more men than she has one woman at a senior level, and that women that are working in her office -- that's enough explanation right there. if you have two senior men --
>> tucker: but why shouldn't she fix that? >> that's already going to offsetet the balance. >> tucker: if you are going to punish other people for not empowering women, why are you doing it -- i'm serious. of course it is, she is lecturing the rest of us about female empowerment, important to vote for her because she was a woman, she has said that repeatedly, but not even in her office. i can't take you seriouslyer unless she gets better. >> you're not going to vote for her anyway, tucker. >> tucker: she's appalling. she's a ridiculous person. oh, my gosh. >> what i would just say that is important about all of this, it does negate the whole equal pay conversation if you don't look at it equally, in terms of education and the job that you are holding. that is what she is trying to address. that is what the entire debate. is about. i tell you, women also have the same biases that men have, and the same bias that men have, that is why you see a lot of blind hiring. people covering up the name of the candidate when they are hiring to make sure they hiring a qualified person and not
letting their own personal bias -- >> tucker: can i ask you a super quick, sincere question? as a person. answer it however you want. having been inin the workforce r a while, on average, who do you think treats female employees better, more decently, with greater kindness: male bosses or female bosses? honestly? >> i have seen it equally. i have seen women who have treated other women badly, men who treated women badly. i've been very fortunate to see it pretty equitable in terms of that. but i think the greater need tho workplace is trying to address, how do you teach women to negotiate. how do you teach women and train men to be able to work with women in a way that is comfortable? the reality is we are operating in a workforce built by men. that is just history, tucker. so a lot of these kinds of policies are trying to advance -- >> tucker: okay, we've been working on this for 50 years. all right, they are telling me i've got to stop. >> 1975, my mother couldn't own a bank account or have a credit
card. we've got to move these things along. >> tucker: not in this country, i'm afraid. i was here in '75 -- >> you've got daughters. all right, thanks. >> tucker: thanks so much. for years, espn lectured viewers about politics, and then were shocked when millions stopped watching the channel. has espn learned its lesson? jason whitlock on that after the break. ♪ like redhead trail head cargo shorts starting at under $20. and world wide sportsman angler shirts starting at under $20. your adventure starts here.
♪ ♪ >> tucker: for decades, espn was one of the most powerful brands in the united states, but it has been in decline for somer years now.w. espn has lost millions of subscribers, revenue has fallen sharply. the network had to lay off more than 100 employees. network executives appeared confused, but sports fans knew part of the reason: espn had become unbearably political. propaganda, a lot of time, not a sportsn, channel. in 2017, commenter jemelee hill tweeted "donald trump is a white
supremacist who has largely surrounded himself with other white supremacists." okay. talking heads on sports shows bashed trump and anyone who didn't share their disdain of him. here's one example. >> we must respect the office. therefore that confers respect to the occupant. tiger, is that is what you are saying? if that is what you are saying, it is a stupid comment. >> i think it was classless on the part of the president of the united states. i don't give a damn, talking about white house employees are furlough because of the border security issues with the democrats. >> tucker: finally, the company seems aware that politics may be part of the a reason for its decline. bombarding viewers with left-wing polemics is not the reason people tune into a sports channel. in a new "los angeles times" profile, the president of espn, jim pitaro, he steered them away from divisive political topics and back to sports. will that work?
jason whitlock is a host on fox sports 1, better known as fs1 on cable or satellite, and he joins us tonight. jason, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: it sounds like the new guy understands most people tuning in to a sports network don't want politics. >> i think jim pitaro is doing the absolute right thing. he is backed by the head of disney. i think they have figured out that too many of their employees were addicted to social media and twitter, and they laced their comments on air and over social media to be pleasing to twitter, rather than to sports fans.. and so the quickest, easiest way to build up your social media traction is to attack the president. that is why so many of their commenters got into the habit of attacking the president, because it was good for social media brand, and i think that bob iger and james pitaro have figured
out, your social media brand doesn't help our televisionme ratings, our television network, or the perception of our television network, and the satisfaction of sports fans. and they told their employees to cut it out. i think it is smart. >> tucker: yeah, twitter doesn't actually generate revenue for its users. most people seem to have forgotten.er so you think that espn's move toward politics was driven by its on-air talent, and not byha the executives? >> oh, absolutely, by the on-air talent. the executives in some way, too, i will just tell you: social media had everyone fooled. if your twitter following was up, that meant, oh, my god, you are resonating with sports fans. and what they have figured out, no, you are resonating with political people. hard, left-wing people, and that elevates your twitter following. it does not sports fans. >> tucker: that is such an
obvious point. i still think to this day, you are the only person i have heard make that point. why did it take, i don't know, a decade, for them to figure that out? >> listen, because executives operate at a level, 30,000 feet in the air, and agents, you've got to remember, all of these media people, journalists used to not be represented by agents. i'm not, but most of them are now. they are represented by agents. agents like to go in and argue with executives and tv networks, look how well my employee is doing, look at his twitter following, look at her ig following. my god, you must pay them more. espn, they used to have those conversations, and used to pay people based off their social media following. it took them years to figure out, that is a whole different group, a whole different audience, than sports fans. >> tucker: that is the smartest explanation i have
heard for a very confusing phenomenon. jason whitlock, thank you very much for that. good to see you. >> thank you, tucker. ♪ >> tucker: big news tonight, finally, after many decades, the pentagon has officially confirmed what has long been obvious: they are, in fact, and have long been, in fact, investigating ufo sightings. in a statement given to "the new york post," the department of defense that it continue to look into reports of "unidentified aerial phenomenon." what might the pentagon find during its investigations? to find out more, we dispatched fox's brett larson to ufo fair to find out more. >> it's an annual gathering within out of of this world origin. >> everybody says they seen something. i'm waiting for my close-up. >> this is the pine bush, new york, ufo fair, which brings
people from far and wide to share costumes, ufo-themed snacks, and stories of sightings. it's not just good for a conspiracy theorist, it's for business. >> you must be destroyed. >> he's not the only one who is happy to share a sighting story. in fact, there were dozens o of folks happy to stop and talk to us about the unusual things they've seen in the night skies. >> i'm a believer that we came from space. >> what's so funny is i coordinate this and i am the town skeptic, but that makes it interesting conversation. but i never say that i don't believe. just that i haven't seen it yet. >> i plead the fifth. >> and this guy, travis walton, allegedly abducted by a ufo back in 1975 while he was a forestry worker in arizona. he disappeared for five days, and even inspired the 1993 film "fire in the sky." we asked walton if he has seen
anything since. and he has. >> that was february 19th, 2014. a giant black triangle came over, stopped right over the top of us, rotated 90 degrees, and shot off toward the ocean. it was quite amazing because i didn't believe anything that big could actually fly. >> as for why he feels we are hearing more about ufo sightings, it's not a coincidence. >> i think it is more acceptable for people to report it. i kind of suspect that sightinga are really accidental. i think they are trying to get us, that is part of what i am doing here, trying to make us ready. the reason it is not open contact is because we are not ready. >> despite shutting down the advanced aerospace threat identification program five years ago, the department of defense isn't turning a blind eye to the skies. good news for the many folks at
the ufo festival in pine bush, and another step forward to finding out if the truth is out there. tucker? >> tucker: thanks a lot, brett. we are out of time tonight. back tomorrow, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.. sean hannity right here. >> sean: tucker, good to see you. welcome to "hannity." tonight we have a ton of breaking news. in the course of the next hour, you will hear from congressman devin nunes, he's breaking news. congressman mark meadows, he smwill break news. senator lindsey graham will break news. lara trump will join us, sara carter, much more. before all of that, we. begin with breaking news from "the hill"'s john solomon, investigative reporter. hours ago, he made a very important legal filing in his very ownwn name demanding the release of records surrounding the carter page fisa application and the three subsequent renewals. solomon is now on a mission to determine how an american citizen was spied on by our federa